May 6, 2019, The Globe & Mail: Will Windsor's new hospital heal the city or do it harm?
|
|
LPAT Decision on Mega-Hospital Raises Many New Issues
December 4, 2019 – Windsor, Ontario - A decision released today by the Ontario Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“LPAT”) regarding an appeal by CAMPP (a Windsor-wide citizens’ coalition) appears to raise as many questions as it answers.
The decision confirms one of the key aspects of CAMPP’s appeal, that in the words of the Tribunal “CAMPP supports a new hospital but opposes it on the proposed site at the periphery of the City in favour of a more central location.” The decision also brings into operation for the first time in the planning process, again in the words of the Tribunal “virtually every section of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014”, making the appeal even more wide-ranging than the parties themselves had argued. In addition, the Tribunal has recognized the evidence of all of the experts called by the parties, including Jennifer Keesmaat, an internationally recognized land use planner retained by CAMPP following her term as the Chief Planner for Canada’s largest city.
At the same time, the Tribunal finds that it is not necessary for all of the planning in this case to conform with Windsor’s own Official Plan. This appears to contradict the primary planning document in Ontario, the Provincial Policy Statement.
The decision also attempts to address the issue of community consultation, particularly with First Nations. The Tribunal expressly finds “coordination and consultation connote discussion which implies a two-way conversation.” However, the Tribunal also finds no evidence that discussion took place and states “in hindsight, more could have been done to consult local Indigenous communities.” This appears to contradict the Tribunal’s conclusion that sufficient consultation ever occured.
The Tribunal goes on to find that need for further development, while away from the current center of Windsor, is justified based on two needs studies commissioned by the City, which conflicted with each other. Further, CAMPP’s primary submission, that this conflict cannot be resolved without further input, is not addressed in the Tribunal’s ruling, which in the past has led to decisions being overturned and sent back for further review.
The decision also recognizes that Windsor’s Official Plan encourages emergency services in close proximity to where people live. However, the evidence before the Tribunal, that the proposed location is 13-18 from where the majority of Windsor’s most vulnerable residents reside, also appears to contradict the appeal’s conclusions.
The Tribunal goes on to find that the area for the new proposed development will be “accessible by walking, cycling and transit”, when the evidence was the proposed area will have no walking and cycling options for the majority of the community now or in the future. In fact, the Tribunal goes on to state “ideally, large services and facilities might be located in the center of an urban area. A downtown, university, hospital or manufacturing facility, all located at the geographic center, would minimize the total travel distance of all residents to those facilities.” Again, the decision appears to contradict the Tribunal’s primary conclusions.
Elsewhere, the Tribunal finds that infrastructure costs are acceptable. However, this finding was supported by evidence provided by the City that was never tested through cross-examination etc., leaving many observers questioning the validity of conclusions based on untested evidence.
Finally, while recognizing that “the loss of farmland in Ontario underpins the PPS and other provincial policies that fervently protect agricultural land, especially prime land, unless fully justified for other uses” the decision permits this to occur, again on untested evidence.
“What is clear from this decision” said Philippa von Ziegenweidt on behalf of CAMPP “is that CAMPP’s major issues were all recognized by the Tribunal as ones that required an analysis and determination.” “However, the Tribunal’s decision raises a number of questions of law that will likely need to be visited again through the LPAT’s own review process or the courts” said Eric Gillespie, legal counsel for CAMPP.
The decision confirms one of the key aspects of CAMPP’s appeal, that in the words of the Tribunal “CAMPP supports a new hospital but opposes it on the proposed site at the periphery of the City in favour of a more central location.” The decision also brings into operation for the first time in the planning process, again in the words of the Tribunal “virtually every section of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014”, making the appeal even more wide-ranging than the parties themselves had argued. In addition, the Tribunal has recognized the evidence of all of the experts called by the parties, including Jennifer Keesmaat, an internationally recognized land use planner retained by CAMPP following her term as the Chief Planner for Canada’s largest city.
At the same time, the Tribunal finds that it is not necessary for all of the planning in this case to conform with Windsor’s own Official Plan. This appears to contradict the primary planning document in Ontario, the Provincial Policy Statement.
The decision also attempts to address the issue of community consultation, particularly with First Nations. The Tribunal expressly finds “coordination and consultation connote discussion which implies a two-way conversation.” However, the Tribunal also finds no evidence that discussion took place and states “in hindsight, more could have been done to consult local Indigenous communities.” This appears to contradict the Tribunal’s conclusion that sufficient consultation ever occured.
The Tribunal goes on to find that need for further development, while away from the current center of Windsor, is justified based on two needs studies commissioned by the City, which conflicted with each other. Further, CAMPP’s primary submission, that this conflict cannot be resolved without further input, is not addressed in the Tribunal’s ruling, which in the past has led to decisions being overturned and sent back for further review.
The decision also recognizes that Windsor’s Official Plan encourages emergency services in close proximity to where people live. However, the evidence before the Tribunal, that the proposed location is 13-18 from where the majority of Windsor’s most vulnerable residents reside, also appears to contradict the appeal’s conclusions.
The Tribunal goes on to find that the area for the new proposed development will be “accessible by walking, cycling and transit”, when the evidence was the proposed area will have no walking and cycling options for the majority of the community now or in the future. In fact, the Tribunal goes on to state “ideally, large services and facilities might be located in the center of an urban area. A downtown, university, hospital or manufacturing facility, all located at the geographic center, would minimize the total travel distance of all residents to those facilities.” Again, the decision appears to contradict the Tribunal’s primary conclusions.
Elsewhere, the Tribunal finds that infrastructure costs are acceptable. However, this finding was supported by evidence provided by the City that was never tested through cross-examination etc., leaving many observers questioning the validity of conclusions based on untested evidence.
Finally, while recognizing that “the loss of farmland in Ontario underpins the PPS and other provincial policies that fervently protect agricultural land, especially prime land, unless fully justified for other uses” the decision permits this to occur, again on untested evidence.
“What is clear from this decision” said Philippa von Ziegenweidt on behalf of CAMPP “is that CAMPP’s major issues were all recognized by the Tribunal as ones that required an analysis and determination.” “However, the Tribunal’s decision raises a number of questions of law that will likely need to be visited again through the LPAT’s own review process or the courts” said Eric Gillespie, legal counsel for CAMPP.
________
Please Support Our
Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT)
Legal Challenge
|
Hospitals belong where people live. Residents of Windsor, Ontario are left with no choice but to take their healthcare into their own hands by launching a legal campaign to keep hospital services within the region's most densely populated neighbourhoods. Both Windsor Regional Hospital (WRH) campuses (Met & Ouellette) are to be replaced by a single regional mega-hospital located on active farmland 13 km (8 miles) from the city centre. This will make hospital-based services much less accessible for tens of thousands of Windsor’s 200,000 residents. Local officials have used mixed messages and strategically limited public input and discussion about the greenfield mega-plan. This has misled many residents into believing they are gaining an additional hospital rather than losing two. Join our fight to give our residents a voice in this process. We fully believe in the need for updated local healthcare infrastructures. However, a decision this monumental, which will affect our healthcare for generations to come, should result from a process that is completely transparent and inclusive. The only way we can achieve this result is by winning our legal appeal. However, this is a complex and costly legal challenge. We need your support. When you donate, no matter how large or small, you are raising your hand (publicly or anonymously) that you believe that hospitals belong where people live. |
|
More about the issue:
The proposed WRH mega-hospital is part of a larger development scheme: the Sandwich South Secondary Plan. The mega-hospital is to be built on what is currently active farmland adjacent to Windsor's airport. The 60-acre facility is being used to justify the residential and commercial development of a further 1,000 acres of prime agricultural land. Yet, when you look at current statistics, the need for a new subdivision outside of the city core is not supported: the local population is aging and economic growth is stagnant. Other communities are tackling their healthcare infrastructure modernization by taking advantage of existing urban infrastructure. While the mega-plan may temporarily benefit a few developers, it will increase Windsor’s long-term residential tax burden and create barriers to healthcare for many of the city's most vulnerable people. Developing Sandwich South also disregards Windsor's Official Plan and Ontario's Provincial Policy Statement. It creates further urban sprawl at a time when other municipalities are shifting to implement more environmentally responsible planning policies. For five years, fact-based concerns raised by Citizens For An Accountable Mega-Hospital Planning Process, along with community groups that include the Ontario Health Coalition, and a growing number of individuals willing to speak out publicly, have been ignored. Together, we have been pleading with local decision-makers to develop a legitimately responsible, inclusive and transparent planning process. This destructive scheme will affect the region’s health, economic and environmental well-being for generations to come. While hospital officials encourage staff to express their support, the public is largely unaware that medical personnel are prevented from voicing negative concerns. There’s no debate about the need for updated local health care infrastructures. Residents in outlying municipalities also need and deserve accessible healthcare, though the solution does not lie in pitting county residents against city residents. There are better ways to improve Essex County residents' access to healthcare services that do not involve gutting the city core. In October, 2018 we filed a legal challenge against Windsor City Council`s August 13, 2018 decision to greenllight the proposed mega-facility. We anticipate accruing more than $100,000 in legal fees to win this challenge. We expect a long fight. A note to health care professionals and other supporters who may need to remain anonymous: We thank those of you who have supported our efforts but could not publicly come forward. We want to assure those who will financially contribute to this important campaign, that all anonymous contributions will remain completely confidential. For media enquiries, please contact Philippa von Ziegenweidt via our contact page. |
|
"Given the legitimacy of the concerns raised by the public ... the duty to consider, address and engage concerns regarding the planning process, the planning rationale, mobility, access and equity are insufficiently met to satisfy even the most basic interpretations of the expectations from community engagement..." -- Jennifer Keesmaat
|
|
Thousands of residents have declared their displeasure with the anticipated closing of Windsor's urban hospitals with lawn signs: "Don't Close Met and Ouellette, We All Deserve Better!", "Re-think the Mega-Plan, It's not a Done Deal" and "Re-think the Mega-Hospital, We Deserve a Better Plan!"
|
